DOCSLIB.ORG

Wilhelm Bousset's Die Religion Des Judentums Im Neutestamentlichen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wilhelm Bousset's Die Religion Des Judentums Im Neutestamentlichen Lutz Doering Wilhelm Bousset’s Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Der Aufsatz ordnet Wilhelm Boussets Werk Die Religion des Judentums im neutesta- mentlichen Zeitalter in seinen forschungsgeschichtlichen Kontextund in das Oeuvre des Autors ein. Er bespricht Quellengrundlage,Methode und ideologischen Zugang Boussets, insbesondere den Einfluss Thomas Carlyles und Boussets Sicht des Juden- tums als auf halber Strecke zwischen Partikularismus und Universalismus stehenge- blieben. Boussets Beitrag zur Erforschung antiker jüdischer Religion wird kritisch ge- würdigt. Keywords: Wilhelm Bousset, Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,particularism and universalism, Thomas Carlyle,Protestant scholarship on ancient Judaism, anti-Judaism, “Spätjudentum” 1. Die Religion des Judentums in Its Scholarly Contextand in Bousset’s Oeuvre When Wilhelm Bousset published DieReligion desJudentums im neutes- tamentlichenZeitalter (henceforth: RJ)in1903, he assigned to thebook “merely the significance of afirst go” (“nur die Bedeutungeinesersten Wurfs”).1 This mayhavebeen, in part, an expression of modesty. As is well known, Boussetrespondedquickly to criticism leveledagainst the book.Apart from adismissive responsetosome of his Jewish critics, above all Felix Perles,2 he considered severalofthe pointsraisedinthe re- 1 W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1903), VII. English translations are my own;additionally the German wording is quoted where deemed significant. 2 W. Bousset, Volksfrömmigkeit und Schriftgelehrtentum (Berlin, 1903), responding to F. Perles, Bousset’s Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter kritischunter- sucht (Berlin, 1903). In this publication, Bousset also responded to M. Güdemann, “Das Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter in christlicher Darstellung,” MGWJ 47 (1903), 38–58, 120–136, 231–249, though much more favorably than to Perles;see below, at n. 18. For athorough evaluation of the controversy between Bousset and his Jewish critics see C. Wiese, Challenging Colonial Discourse:Jewish Studies and Protestant Early Christianity 6 (2015), 51–66 DOI 10.1628/186870315X14249562917993 ISSN 1868-7032 ©2015 Mohr Siebeck 52 Lutz Doering views in asecond editionin1906 (henceforth: RJ2), in which part of the disposition,though not the general direction,ofthe work was changed.3 But the referenceto“afirst go”also conveys Bousset’sconsciousness that this book, as “umfassende Darstellung der Religion desSpätjudentums,” was virtually the first of its kind.4 To be sure, there weresome attempts at such an overall account, but they werequite different in shape and approach. Bousset himself mentions onewho preceded him in asimilar enterprise, August Friedrich Gfrörer,5 although he would not accept the latter’sfocus on rabbinic literature.6 Sim- ilar,and even stronger,isBousset’s complaint about Ferdinand Weber, whose System deraltsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie7 had been, for severaldecades,the Christian standardwork beforeBillerbeck’s collection of rabbinic “parallels” outstripped it:8 Bousset limits its role to that of an “auxiliary tool for the knowledge of contemporary Pharisaic theology.”9 Theology in Wilhemine Germany (trans. B. Harshavand C. Wiese;Studies in European Judaism 10;Leiden, 2005), 177–205. 3 Cf. A.F. Verheule, Wilhelm Bousset, Lebenund Werk:Ein theologiegeschichtlicher Versuch (Amsterdam, 1973), 99:“Diese Änderung [sc. of the disposition] ist aber nur eine for- melle, Bousset hat das Buch nicht wirklich umgestaltet.” –The preface to the 2nd edition does not repeat the phrase about the “ersten Wurf” but still admits that there is much to be learned in the field covered in the book (RJ2,VIII). 4 RJ,VII. 5 RJ,VII. –A.F. Gfrörer, Geschichtedes Urchristenthums,vol. 1, Das Jahrhundertdes Heils (2 parts;Stuttgart, 1838). With his rhetoric of the “first go,” Bousset echoes Gfrörer,who wrote:“Schwer ist der Pfad des Geschichtschreibers [sic],besonders dessen, der,wie ich, einen Gegenstand behandelt, welcher von Anderen kaum, oder gar nicht berührt wor- den ist;fast überall habe ich die erste Furchedurch das Neubruchland gezogen” (ibid., vol. 1/1, V–VI). Gfrörer,who kept theological evaluation largely outside of his presen- tation of Judaism, was initially seldom followed, until Bousset rediscovered him;cf. H.- G. Waubke, Die Pharisäer in der protestantischen Bibelwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts (BHT 107;Tübingen, 1998), 60. 6 RJ,49:“Die spätere jüdische Tradition hat er […] ungesichtet und ziemlich kritiklos ver- wertet. Auch ist seine Darstellung oft im Material stecken geblieben. Aber der ganze Wurf [NB] ist groß und kühn gedacht.” 7 F. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud (ed. F. Delitzsch and G. Schnedermann;Leipzig, 1880);2nd ed. under the title Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (Leipzig, 1897). 8 See the critique of Weber by C.G. Montefiore, JQR 13/2 (1901), 171–173, and especially G.F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254, here 228–237, followed by E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism:AComparison of Patterns of Re- ligion (Minneapolis, 1977), 34–39. More recently, see Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 250– 256, and the somewhat milder assessment by R. Deines, Die Pharisäer:Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen, 1997), 245–255. 9 RJ,52;RJ2,58:“treffliches Hülfsmittel zur Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen pharisäischen Theologie.” In light of the limits of this acknowledgement, Sanders, Paul (see n. 8), 39–40, Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 53 Some attempts remainmerely at the fringes of Bousset’s radar,suchasthat by the Roman (later:Old) Catholic professor Joseph Langen,10 whosetake, according to Bousset, was shaped too muchbydogmatics and limited in its consideration of sources.11 Other publications were closer to Bousset’s heart, but they coveredonlyaspects of the topic,such as Paul Volz’s Jüdi- sche Eschatologie,12 which Bousset praised as the definitive work in RJ2,13 or provided the wider historical frameworkfor the period under consid- eration, such as Julius Wellhausen’s Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte and, of course, especially EmilSchürer’s Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes.14 Among the moregeneralpublications, Bousset mentionsthe foundational studiesofthe Wissenschaft des Judentums merely en passant,criticizing their slim coverageofthe Apocryphaand Pseudepigraphaand their focus on later rabbinic tradition. The only exception (in RJ2)isMori(t)z Friedländer,whom he credits with “a highly remarkable, independent view, for aJewish scholar,”15 although Bousset disagreeswith his sharp dis- tinctionbetweenDiaspora Judaism and PalestinianPharisaism. As much as it commends Friedländer,Bousset’s remark reveals his bias against Jew- ish scholarsingeneral. However,whatdistinguishedBoussetmost was that he was the first within thedeveloping Religionsgeschichtliche Schule at Göttingen to write extensively on ancient Judaism. RJ was the first comprehensive ac- countofancient Judaism from theperspective of the “school,” and Bousset probably overemphasizes Bousset’s dependence on Weber. Note Hugo Gressmann’s changed tone in the 3rd ed.:“Ein nur mit Vorsicht zu benutzendes Hilfsmittel zur Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen pharisäischen Theologie”: W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd ed. by H. Gressmann;HNT 21;Tü- bingen, 1926), 50 (henceforth: RJ3). 10 J. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1866). 11 RJ,49–50. The latter verdict is not entirely fair:Langen considered as broad arange of sources as were available in 1866 (lengthily presented in Langen, Judenthum [see n. 10], 23–182) and, while criticizing Gfrörer for his use of the Talmud for earlier periods, he reasoned, with Wilhelm M.L. de Wette, that the Mishnah “dürfe nicht gänzlich umgan- gen werden,” though he thought the “casuistic” nature of the Mishnah had little to con- tribute “für unsere Aufgabe” (ibid.,180). 12 P. Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen, 1903). 13 RJ2,55:“Überholt sind alle Arbeiten auf diesem Gebiet durch die ungemein gründliche und eindringende Arbeit von P. Volz […].” 14 J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (4th ed.;Berlin, 1901;5th ed. 1904); E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,vol. 1(3rd/4th ed.; Leipzig, 1901);vols. 2–3 (3rd ed.;Leipzig, 1898). Cf. RJ,51–52. 15 RJ2,56: “Eine für einen jüdischen Gelehrten höchst bemerkenswerte, unabhängige Sicht der Dinge.” On similarities and differences between Friedländer’sviews of Juda- ism and those of Bousset and liberal Protestantism, cf. Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 280–283. 54 Lutz Doering remained its leading voice in the field. In addition, it is certainly significant for an assessment of Bousset’s oeuvre that he deals extensively withancient Judaism in RJ and RJ2,and with Gnosticism in his Hauptproblemeder Gnosis,before focusing on thedevelopment of Christology in his Kyrios Christos.16 There is more thanapinch of irony here. As arepresentative of the his- tory of religionsschool, Boussetclearly made apoint of anon-dogmatic, comparativeapproachthat drew on ancient sources acrossthe religions and aimedattheir purely historicaltreatment. Arguably, therefore, some aspects of the new approach “stirred hope for afairerperception of Jewish history and tradition,”17 particularly amongst Jewishscholars,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kyrios Christos Wilhelm Bousset the Princeton Theological Review 12:636-645
    Kyrios Christos Wilhelm Bousset The Princeton Theological Review 12:636-645. [1914] A treatise on the term kurioj as applied to Jesus would seem to deal with a sufficiently specialized subject. But, as the subtitle of Dr. Bousset’s work informs us, we receive in it no less than a “History of Christological Faith from the Beginnings Down to Irenaeus.” And even this scarcely covers what the book actually offers, for in reality it approaches to being a sketch of the earliest history of Christian belief in general, including some aspects that are not technically Christological, although the author in the Preface disavows this wider purpose on the ground that the time is not ripe as yet for describing the origin of Christianity in the milieu of the Hellenistic-Roman civilization. The value of the book—and it is great, irrespective of one’s agreement or disagreement with its conclusions—is due largely to this breadth of outlook proceeding from a point that by common consent was of central importance and of propelling force in the earliest development of Christianity, the view taken of and the relation sustained toward Christ as Lord. As might be expected, Dr. Bousset writes as a consistent “religionsgeschichtler.” He repudiates the distinction between biblical theology and history of doctrine not merely, but is eager to obliterate the lines of demarcation between the Christian religion and the surrounding spheres of faith and practice in the midst of which it grew up. He further brings to the front more seriously than has been attempted by anybody before, at least in such a comprehensive way, the principle that the forms of religious belief to a large extent took their rise and shape from the cultus, in other words that doctrine grew out of worship, rather than the reverse, as is usually assumed to have been the case.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology
    THE SPIRIT IN SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH MONOTHEISM AND THE ORIGINS OF EARLY CHRISTOLOGY Andrew W. Pitts and Seth Pollinger Following the last several decades, the rich and developing discussion con- tinues over the nature of pre-Christian Jewish and Jewish Christian mono- theism, especially with reference to the origins of christological doctrines. Until fairly recently, many believed that Jewish monotheism de ned itself by numerical singularity and, consequently, allowed very little exibility in identifying entities other than Yahweh, strictly de ned, as God. A number of recent scholars have questioned these assumptions, pointing to person- i ed attributes (e.g. wisdom, the Logos) or exalted intermediary gures as evidence of a “exible” Jewish monotheism. They suggest that these divine qualities or mediatorial agents provided a monotheistic conceptual frame- work where high Christology could have naturally originated within the Jewish heritage of the earliest Christians. These scholars typically set such views in contrast to the old Kyrios christologies, which purported that Jesus’ divinity must have arisen due to polytheistic and henotheistic inuences that penetrated Christian theology through the Gentile mission. While we agree that the new school Jewish christologies ofer an improved assessment for the origins of early Christology over the old school Hellenistic models, we still nd that their analogies are insu cient. First, in Jewish monothe- ism, the divine attributes were too ontologically similar with Yahweh to provide an adequate antecedent to the Christian Messiah, a separate agent. Attributes, no matter how they are personi ed, are too closely identi ed with Yahweh’s primary instantiation of the divine identity to form a con- vincing analogy with the incarnate Christ.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyrios Christos Introduction–Hurtado
    Introduction Wilhelm Bousset’s Kyrios Christos is surely one of the most influential academic books in the history of scholarship on the New Testament and the origins of Christianity.1 As Bousset indicated in his foreword to the first edition, the focus of the book is on the veneration of Jesus in the corporate worship (“cultus”) of early Christian circles, and the key question pursued is how this remarkable phenomenon came about.2 Bousset rightly judged this cultic veneration of Jesus as the most important religious development in early Christianity. The question of how it appeared is all the more important given the ancient Jewish concern to protect the uniqueness of the one God, especially in matters of worship.3 In short, under what circumstances did believers feel so free to add a second, distinguishable figure (Jesus) as corecipient of cultic devotion along with God (“the Father”)? Bousset’s thesis (indeed, the key claim of the volume) was that this cultic veneration of Jesus did not emerge in the earliest circles of Jewish believers, the “Primitive Palestinian 1 The original edition is Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (FRLANT, nf 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913). For brief biographical information, see Hendrikus Boers, “Bousset, Wilhelm,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. John H. Hayes (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 1:136–37. For a full biography, see Anthonie F. Verheule, Wilhelm Bousset: Leben und Werk: Ein theologiegeschichtlicher Versuch (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1973). 2 Bousset, Kyrios Christos, v; p. 11 of this English edition, to which I refer hereafter unless noted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Humanity of Jesus in J Ustin Martyr's Soteriology by Craig M. Watts
    The Humanity of Jesus in J ustin Martyr's Soteriology by Craig M. Watts Mr. Watts, a graduate of Vanderbilt University, is minister of the First Christian Church (DisClples of Christ) in Carbonvale, Illinois. We are indebted to him for this study of the thought ofJustin Martyr. Justin Martyr's soteriological thought and his concept of the humanity of Jesus has received very little attention. In fact the prominent role which cosmology and the doctrine of the divine Logos play in Justin's writings seems to so overshadow his soteriology and the place of the history and humanity of Jesus that the latter virtually disappear. In view of this and other considerations certain scholars have suggested that these aspects of Justin's theology are relatively unimportant and are artificially attached to, rather than an intrinsic part of, the structure of his thought. I Conse­ quently it seems that a study inJustin's understanding of the humanity of Jesus and the bearing it has on his soteriology is in order. Such a study may indicate to what extent Justin's soteriology is related to his thought as a whdc. I. In order to understand better the humanity of Jesus inJustin's thought it 21 must be seen in conjunction with his concept of the divine Logos. Justin stood between two views of God and was captive of both. On the one hand, through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ he saw God as the One who has drawn near to man, revealing his divine character, intention and will. A vision of God determined by Jesus Christ is that of a God deeply and actively involved in human affairs and compassionate in his dealings with humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship
    religions Article Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship Stacy Davis Department of Religious Studies and Theology Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) is in many ways the ancestor of modern Hebrew Bible scholarship. His Prolegomena to the History of Israel condensed decades of source critical work on the Torah into a documentary hypothesis that is still taught today in almost all Hebrew Bible courses in some form. What is not taught as frequently is the anti-Judaism that underpins his hypothesis. This is in part due to unapologetic apologetics regarding Wellhausen’s bias, combined with the insistence that a nineteenth-century scholar cannot be judged by twenty-first century standards. These calls for compassion are made exclusively by white male scholars, leaving Jewish scholars the solitary task of pointing out Wellhausen’s clear anti-Judaism. In a discipline that is already overwhelmingly white, male and Christian, the minimizing of Wellhausen’s racism suggests two things. First, those who may criticize contextual biblical studies done by women and scholars of color have no problem pleading for a contextual understanding of Wellhausen while downplaying the growing anti-Judaism and nationalism that was a part of nineteenth-century Germany. Second, recent calls for inclusion in the Society of Biblical Literature may be well intentioned but ultimately useless if the guild cannot simply call one of its most brilliant founders the biased man that he was. Keywords: Wellhausen; anti-Judaism; historical context Citation: Davis, Stacy. 2021. Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans Jonas and Research on Gnosticism from a Contemporary Perspective1
    CHAPTER FOUR HANS JONAS AND RESEARCH ON GNOSTICISM FROM A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE1 Kurt Rudolph The work of the so-called humanities, cultural studies, or social sci- ences is, as we know, determined by different research strategies. Apart from the work areas as such—in other words, the objects on which the researcher’s attention is focused—it is above all the methodologi- cal approaches and the situation concerning sources, in other words the various types of evidence, that strongly infl uence the progress of research. The concept of the paradigm shift, introduced by Thomas S. Kuhn, can be readily extrapolated to cultural sciences, as often occurs, since there too, the process of advancing appropriation of past and present occurrences depends on certain conscious or mostly unconscious “preconceptions.” The present day in particular shows, often in a fairly dramatic way, how the increasing chronological and spatial expansion of the scientifi c view is accompanied by increasing refl ection on the researcher’s acts of “commission and omission.” One need only recall the question of “ethnocentricities” in these areas. Historical research in particular, in our case the history of religion, has had to undergo paradigm shifts time and again, often quite late compared with neighboring disciplines. This can readily be demon- strated in the area dealing with ancient gnosis, or Gnosticism (as it is frequently termed in English and French). One challenge is the change in the way questions are formulated in relation to this subject matter 1 Translated from the German by Margret Vince. Original lecture given at the Uni- versity of Konstanz on May 15, 1998, under the title “Hans Jonas als Gnosisforscher” (Hans Jonas as a Researcher on Gnosticism), on the occasion of the opening of the Hans Jonas archive there; reprinted in the Estonian periodical Trames 5 (2001): 291–301.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Light and Darkness: Martin Buber's Gnostic Canon and The
    religions Article A Tale of Light and Darkness: Martin Buber’s Gnostic Canon and the Birth of Theopolitics Orr Scharf Cultural Studies M.A. Program, The University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel; [email protected] Received: 18 January 2019; Accepted: 29 March 2019; Published: 1 April 2019 Abstract: The current article revisits the tenuous relationship between Martin Buber’s conception of divine rule on earth (theopolitics) with Carl Schmitt’s famous notion of political theology, by underscoring their shared, though diametrically opposed interest in Gnostic ideas. Based on a reading of Buber’s heretofore unpublished lectures on Judaism and Christianity, the study outlines the nexus between the German tradition of scientific research, religious ideology and political visions, in order to show that Buber’s treatment of Gnosticism in the lectures is belied by an implicit critique of Schmitt’s dualistic distinction between friend and foe that legitimizes the subversion of liberal democracy. The Gnostic canon that Buber identifies in certain parts of the New Testament is shown to be based on the very same scientific research that fed Schmitt’s fascination with Gnostic teachings. Keywords: Buber; Martin; Gnosticism; Theopolitics; Schmitt; Carl; Science; Baur; Christian Ferdinand; Harnack; Adolph von; Bousset; Wilhelm; Reitzenstein; Richard 1. Introduction Intellectual historians often face a contradiction inherent to their discipline. The historical dimension of their research requires them to dwell on circumstantial specifics, while the “intellectual,” or perhaps more accurately, the “ideational” dimension of their work entails more abstract reflection on the subject matter (Lovejoy 1940). The current study took shape in light of this contradiction: as its title suggests it focuses on Martin Buber’s (1878–1965) perception of Gnosticism; but at the very same time, it broaches themes as deep and wide as evolving conceptions of “science,” politics, theology, and their charged interrelationships.
    [Show full text]
  • HOLLIDAY: Book Profile: What Is Gnosticism? 136
    L ISA R. H OLLIDAY The University of Kentucky BOOK PROFILE : WHAT IS GNOSTICISM ? A review of Karen King, What is Gnosticism? The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. 343 pp. $16.95 (paper) / $30.00 (cloth). ISBN: 0-6740-1762-5. AREN KING ’S NEWEST WORK , What is Gnosticism?, offers an impressive K analysis of the underlying assumptions that have shaped modern conceptions of Gnosticism. Despite the volume’s title, King’s work does not seek to provide a new definition of Gnosticism, but to raise scholarly awareness of the pitfalls inherent to most approaches. Indeed, her work is addressed to the larger field of early Christian studies. King holds that “the task at hand is to enable an ethics of critical-reflexive practice in historiography and theology … to further critical reflexivity with regard to the discourses and methods of historical scholarship.” (147). The challenge for historians, as she aptly illustrates throughout her work, is to be aware of the biases inherent in the terminology that have shaped the study of early Christianity. Gnosticism is a rightfully questioned term, as King argues. This problem is one that has frustrated scholars of early Christianity for some time: what is Gnosticism and how does it differ from Christianity, if it does at all? Before turning to her analysis of Gnosticism, King summarizes the prevalent historical methodologies: genealogical and typological/phenomenological. The genealogical approach searches for the roots of Gnosticism, and is embodied in the work of Adolf von Harnack, whom King devotes her third chapter to in its entirety. The second approach, typology, is exemplified in the work of Hans Jonas, which King lauds because it offers alternatives to the popular genealogical method.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos 1 Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos
    Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abindgon, 1970. INTRODUCTORY WORD TO THE 5TH EDITION BY RUDOLF BULTMANN The influence of the history-of-religions school for NT research includes the following areas: 1) The significance of eschatology. 2) Hellenistic Christianity is to be distinguished from the primitive Palestinian community. 3) Point 2 necessitates the study of “Jesus and Paul” and “The historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ.” 4) The sacrament and the church. 5) The peculiarity of Hellenistic Christianity. 6) Bousset sought to remove the wall of separation between NT theology and the history of doctrine in the early church. Bousset’s thesis: Jesus was first characterized and addressed as “Lord,” not in the primitive community but in Hellenistic Christianity. FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION BY WILHELM BOUSSET Kyrios Christos is Jesus of Nazareth in essence as the Lord of his community, venerated in the cultus. The present work takes its point of departure from the practice of the cultus and of the community’s worship and to understand the way things developed from this perspective. In this work, Bousset removes the following 2 restrictions: 1) The removal of the wall of partition between NT theology and the history of doctrine in the early church. 2) The removal of the separation of the religious history of primitive Christianity from the development of the religious life surrounding Christianity in the time of its earliest childhood. Thus Bousset avoids any discussion of the NT canon and of the presupposition of the uniqueness of the NT message.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus Christ As Poetic Symbol: Wilhelm Bousset's Contribution To
    Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences 2009 Jesus Christ as Poetic Symbol: Wilhelm Bousset’s Contribution to the Faith-History Debate Brent A. R. Hege Butler University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Hege, Brent A. R., "Jesus Christ as Poetic Symbol: Wilhelm Bousset’s Contribution to the Faith-History Debate" Journal for the History of Modern Theology/Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte / (2009): 197-216. Available at https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers/147 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jesus Christ as Poetic Symbol: Wilhelm Bousset’s Contribution to the Faith-History Debate Brent A. R. Hege* “Poetry is nearer to vital truth than history.” Plato, Ion “Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history; or poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.” Aristotle^ The Poetics؛ Wilhelm Bousset (1865-1920)1 is perhaps best remçmbered as a New Testa- ment scholar in the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, particularly for his semi- nal work on early Christology, Kyrios Christos, first published in 1913.2 Ap- praisals of Bousset’s work in English typically limit their view to this work, paying little or no attention to the theological presuppositions and develop- ment of his thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Ttu Stc001 000011.Pdf (11.59Mb)
    :i;fi*W9!W?s»0!nW«HPW™n>?':'.! r' 'V.'f™i' mt.iQf ... '6. a'2i^.'-Kt!.;l:^Vi'rj|{ IWLWA »^.UA% & kWIm% I CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY VOL. XVIII THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. BY DR. HARNACK AND DR. HERRMANN Crown Ubeologlcal Xibrari? WORKS ALREADY PUBLISHED Vol. I. —BABEL AND BIBLE. By Dr. FRIEDRICH DKLITZSCH. 5S. Vol. XL—THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST. An Historical and Critical Essay. By PAUL LOBSTKIN. 3s. Vol. in.—MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT. Confessions of a Preacher. By R. WIMMER. 3S. 6d. Vol. IV.—LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY. Its Origin, Nature, and Mission. By JEAN REVILLE. 4S. Vol. V—WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? By ADOLF HARNACK. 5S. Vol. VI.—FAITH AND MORALS. By W. HERRMANN. 5S. Vol. VII.—EARLY HEBREW STORY. A Study of the Origin, the Value, and the Historical Background of the Legends of Israel. By JOHN P. PPTFRS T) D 'is Vol. VIII.—BIBLE PROBLEMS AND THE NEW MATERIAL FOR THEIR SOLUTION. By Prof. T. K. CHBYNE, D.Litt., D.D. 5s. Vol. IX.—THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONE­ MENT AND ITS HISTORICAL EVOLUTION, AND RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE. By the late AUGUSTE SABATIER 4S, 6d. Vol. X.—THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CON- CEPTION OP CHRIST : its Significance and Value in the History of Religion. By OTTO PFLEIDERER. 38. 6d. Vol. XL—THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Eleven Essays by Various Writers. 6s. Vol. XII.—THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION: An Anthropological Study. ByL. R. FARNELL, M.A., D.Litt. 5s. Vol. XIII.—THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Baron HERMANN VON SODEN, D.D. 5s. Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Eschatology in a Secular Age: an Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg John R
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2013 Eschatology in a Secular Age: An Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg John R. Lup, Jr. University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Lup, Jr., John R., "Eschatology in a Secular Age: An Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg" (2013). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4532 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Eschatology in a Secular Age: An Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg by John R. Lup, Jr. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Charles Guignon, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Michael Gibbons, Ph.D. Steven Turner, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 14, 2013 Keywords: Being, History, Infinity, Progress, Teleology, Time Copyright © 2013, John R. Lup, Jr. DEDICATION There have been a number of people who have helped me reach this goal in life but I could not have accomplished this work without the encouragement of my friends and patient endurance of my family members.
    [Show full text]